Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Petrozzi v. Thurston County Superior Court

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

July 6, 2018

TIMOTHY ROBERT PETROZZI, Petitioner,
v.
THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, THURSTON COUNTY CORRECTIONS, WASHINGTON STATE DSHS, and WESTERN STATE HOSPITAL, Respondents.

          ORDER TO AMEND

          J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge.

         The District Court has referred this petition for a writ of habeas corpus to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The Court's authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. Petitioner filed the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         Petitioner Timothy Robert Petrozzi has filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 35), stating three grounds for relief. However, he has not included facts supporting his grounds for relief and, further, has named several respondents, none of whom are proper parties because none of them are his custodian. Therefore, the Court declines to serve petitioner's habeas petition at this time, but provides petitioner leave to file an amended petition on or before August 3, 2018. The Court also notes that this petition has been pending since August of 2017. Therefore, the Court will not look favorably on any further delays to petitioner's case.

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner initially filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in August of 2017. Dkt.1. After petitioner corrected his application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 5), the Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 6) and filed an order to show cause or amend the petition by October 27, 2017 (Dkt. 8). The Court later extended the deadline to December 1, 2017, because petitioner had been relocated within the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and the Court was concerned that the move may have caused him a delay in filing his amended petition. Dkt. 10. Petitioner next filed a “response” to the Court's order, but the response did not address any of the concerns the Court raised in its order. Dkt. 12. The Court next extended petitioner's deadline to February 2, 2018 (Dkt. 23), then to March 16, 2018 (Dkt. 24), and eventually to May 4, 2018 (Dkt. 27). These extensions were caused by petitioner filing motions and requests rather than his amended petition, and the Court giving petitioner additional opportunities to file his amended petition. See Dkts. 19, 25, 26, 28.

         In May of 2018, petitioner contacted the Clerk's Office, stating that he was now housed at Western State Hospital and that he had not received the Court's previous order granting extension. Dkt. event at 5/22/2018. In light of this, the Court directed the Clerk to re-send the previous order, and granted a final extension to June 22, 2018. Dkt. 29. Petitioner finally filed his amended petition, which was signed on June 21, 2018. Dkt. 35.

         In his amended petition, petitioner first claims that he is being denied a particular unspecified process under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and both his Washington statutory and First Amendment rights are being infringed. Dkt. 35, p. 5. He next states that his offender score at sentencing entitled him to a sentencing range of 12-14 months, but that he has served 22 months and has not yet been released. Id. at p. 7. He finally alleges there was “error dismissal [sic] although findings were filed per RAP 15.2 and decision 5.3(a).” Id. at p. 8. Petitioner names the Thurston County Superior Court, “Thurston County Corrections, ” the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”), and Western State Hospital as respondents. He asks both that he be released, and that he receive “judgment for amounts listed in summons and complaint over 10 million dollars.” Id. at p. 15.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Failure to Comply With Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases

         Under Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “the petition must name as respondent the state officer who has custody.” (emphasis added). Further:

[t]he petition must: (1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; (3) state the relief requested; (4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and (5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. §2242.

Id. at Rule 2(c). The petition must “substantially follow” a form prescribed by the local district court or the form attached to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Id. at Rule 2(d).

         Here, petitioner has named Thurston County Superior Court, “Thurston County Corrections, ” DSHS, and Western State Hospital as respondents in his amended petition. Dkt. 35, p. 1. As noted above, the correct respondent in a habeas petition is the person with custody of petitioner. Petitioner's original petition indicates that he was housed both at Western State Hospital and the Thurston County Jail (see Dkt. 7), and his amended petition indicates that he is now being housed only at Western State Hospital (see Dkt. 35). Western State Hospital is a DSHS facility, and therefore the appropriate respondent is Cheryl Strange, the Secretary of DSHS.

         In addition, petitioner has only stated three grounds for relief, and has included almost nothing to support those grounds. After simply writing “American's [sic] with Disabilities Act, ” petitioner's first ground states in its entirety: “have been denied this process that I am entitled to per RCWs 10.77.020, 10.77.230, 10.77.240, 1st Amendment by Judge Martin.” Dkt. 35, p. 5. He does not include any further explanation of how the denial of this process caused him to be convicted unlawfully or how he is otherwise entitled to habeas relief. Similarly, his second ground notes that his offender score entitled him to 12-14 months incarceration, but he has now served 22 months. Id. at p. 7. Though continued incarceration after a sentence has been fully served would certainly state a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.